@
Tucker
asks a provocative question:
Ignore: Ignore users who always say the same things, who are obnoxious, etc.
Sin Bin: Use for otherwise respected, useful members of the community who simply need a bit of a breather from the site. An anonymous, mob-enforced meltdown, as it were. This is how I imagine the sin bin has been used in the case of, say @ and @ . Sometimes things get a little out of control and the community decides someone needs to calm down / sober up / whatever.
Ban: This should be used primarily used to get rid of users who will never, ever contribute to the community. This includes obvious spammers and trolls from other clubs, etc. Someone like Xose, or the myriad goons who have their minders type in their passwords so they can flap away on threads after we suffer a defeat. If I had to guess, TFC bans only users who will literally never make an effort to engage in useful conversation. In other words, Spurs supporters shouldn't ever get banned from here.
So if a poster is Spurs and is persistently obnoxious, it strikes me that the proper course of action is to ignore. Let the person starve on his or her lack of attention.
Yet is that the appropriate response to someone who is acting homophobic / racist / antisocial in some way? Maybe not, especially since it's defined on denial. "La la la, the world is full of people saying homophobic things, but I have my little comfortable garden."
Sin binning isn't right either, since then the user returns triumphant, having proven by virtue of exile that the community is filled with silent nannies who, while afraid to hear "the truth" or something like that, answer to the call coming from Mount Politically Correct. Sin binning, I imagine, only emboldens the antisocial behaviour.
And banning seems to be, as noted above, only for obvious trolls / non-Spurs.
Back when racism was a bannable offense and not, instead, funny, as @ maria might say, it would have been clear what to do with a Spurs supporter who posts racist/homophobic stuff: ban. Now, I'm not so sure.
I hadn't really considered this before, but it strikes me that banning on this site is/should be used as a different kind of tool than sin binning and ignoring. There are obviously no real rules, which is why I open up my reading to discussion from others:Out of interest, how many sin bins can someone have before an outright ban?
Ignore: Ignore users who always say the same things, who are obnoxious, etc.
Sin Bin: Use for otherwise respected, useful members of the community who simply need a bit of a breather from the site. An anonymous, mob-enforced meltdown, as it were. This is how I imagine the sin bin has been used in the case of, say @ and @ . Sometimes things get a little out of control and the community decides someone needs to calm down / sober up / whatever.
Ban: This should be used primarily used to get rid of users who will never, ever contribute to the community. This includes obvious spammers and trolls from other clubs, etc. Someone like Xose, or the myriad goons who have their minders type in their passwords so they can flap away on threads after we suffer a defeat. If I had to guess, TFC bans only users who will literally never make an effort to engage in useful conversation. In other words, Spurs supporters shouldn't ever get banned from here.
So if a poster is Spurs and is persistently obnoxious, it strikes me that the proper course of action is to ignore. Let the person starve on his or her lack of attention.
Yet is that the appropriate response to someone who is acting homophobic / racist / antisocial in some way? Maybe not, especially since it's defined on denial. "La la la, the world is full of people saying homophobic things, but I have my little comfortable garden."
Sin binning isn't right either, since then the user returns triumphant, having proven by virtue of exile that the community is filled with silent nannies who, while afraid to hear "the truth" or something like that, answer to the call coming from Mount Politically Correct. Sin binning, I imagine, only emboldens the antisocial behaviour.
And banning seems to be, as noted above, only for obvious trolls / non-Spurs.
Back when racism was a bannable offense and not, instead, funny, as @ maria might say, it would have been clear what to do with a Spurs supporter who posts racist/homophobic stuff: ban. Now, I'm not so sure.